 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:EyeSerene. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Copyedit?
If you're up to it, I could use an extra pair of eyes to copyedit the episodes section of the article Requiem from the Darkness. I added descriptions for the episodes I could remember, but you know me: My spelling and grammar suck, and it won't do to have that here on wikipedia lest become confused over the direction of the plot :) TomStar81 (Talk) 05:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Userpage
Saw your updates to your userpage and was reminded of just how good of a decision it was to co-opt you. I'm glad they did. :-) Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oshkosh and other making-light-of-undeserved-flattery-while-at-the-same-time-feeling-flattered noises. Thanks Ed :) EyeSerenetalk 12:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- "Oshkosh"? Must be another one of those silly British noises. Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, and you're welcome. ;-) Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- "Oshkosh"? Must be another one of those silly British noises. Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Copyediting
Hi EyeSerene! I am currently trying to polish Armero tragedy's prose in preparation for a run at FAC. It needs some work, and I remembered your highly beneficial help at 1997 Qayen earthquake. Would you be interested? ceranthor 14:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Criminals Hall of Fame article
Hi, I saw your comments at Moonriddengirl (MRG) and responded to the two of you. I then went to the article and the reaction of the editor was to remove your prod. I just want to bring this to your attention. The editor instead put a cleanup template in it's place. I thought prod templates weren't supposed to be removed like this. I'm going to leave this to you since you have a lot more knowledge about this than I do. Thanks again for your help, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hi CrohnieGal and welcome to my talk page :) Prods are really just a way of saying "I think this article in its current form is unsuitable for Wikipedia". If the article has been created and abandoned, like so many are, it will be deleted after seven days with no more fuss. If it hasn't been abandoned prods are a good way of both finding that out and ensuring that the author knows they've got to improve the content. Anyone can remove a prod... but we expect that they'll then improve the article. What I'll do is leave it seven days, as though the prod was still there, and then check back. If the article hasn't significantly improved I'll take it to AfD. Hopefully that shouldn't be too unfair on anyone. (PS: it's quite possible I'll forget to check back on the article, so if you're keeping an eye on things feel free to give me a kick!) EyeSerenetalk 13:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. I am have this watchlisted so I should be able to keep up with things and will let you know if it doesn't change to show reliable sources at least. Thanks again, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Romanization for words of English origin
On the MOS:JP talk page, a discussion has been started about including or not including romanizations for words of English origin, such as Fainaru Fantajī in Final Fantasy (ファイナルファンタジー, Fainaru Fantajī) (for the sake of simplicity, I called this case "words of English origin", more information on semantics here).
Over the course of a month, it has become apparent that both the parties proposing to include or not include those romanizations cannot be convinced by the arguments or guidelines brought up by the other side. Therefore, a compromise is trying to be found that will satisfy both parties. One suggestion on a compromise has been given already, but it has not found unanimous agreement, so additional compromises are encouraged to be suggested.
One universally accepted point was to bring more users from the affected projects in to help achieve consensus, and you were one of those selected in the process.
What this invitation is:
- You should give feedback on the first suggested compromise and are highly encouraged to provide other solutions.
What this invitation is not:
- This is not a vote on including or excluding such romanizations.
- This is not a vote on compromises either.
It would be highly appreciated if you came over to the MOS:JP talk page and helped find a solution. Thank you in advance. Prime Blue (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok to use doctorate thesis
Hi E
Can you advise please, is there a policy that suggests that we should not use published doctorate thesis’ or are they ok? I have downloaded and skimming through a thesis on civil affairs and it has some in-depth information on the various French casualties during the battle, in the lead up to it, and the overall number of “war victims”; thus far I have only seen this type of detail in any other study.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- WP:SPS would be the relevant policy I suppose. In essence, self-published work is fine if it's by a recognised expert in the field and it's used with care. EyeSerenetalk 16:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I can't find it now, but there used to be something about using dissertations/doctoral thesis' somewhere. It said that it was fine as long as they had been published, as thesis' are reviewed by professors beforehand (or something like that). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've read that as well. I can't see anything wrong with using a completed PhD thesis - they're pretty much the highest level of academic enterprise and are often turned into books and/or journal articles with only minor changes. Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks guys and thanks for the link, when i get some time i will add the info i have found! Cheers :)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hi all, if you intrested in the info alluded to in the above please see the latest addition to the Operation Overlord article (hopefully when you see this and click the latest addition wont be one of the usual "your gay" pieces of vandalism :P)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks guys and thanks for the link, when i get some time i will add the info i have found! Cheers :)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've read that as well. I can't see anything wrong with using a completed PhD thesis - they're pretty much the highest level of academic enterprise and are often turned into books and/or journal articles with only minor changes. Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- I can't find it now, but there used to be something about using dissertations/doctoral thesis' somewhere. It said that it was fine as long as they had been published, as thesis' are reviewed by professors beforehand (or something like that). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
|
|
|
July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy |
|
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Charnwood one last time
I think you may have missed this during your clear-up, although i could understand why you would not want to have anything more to do with the article :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Finally found some time to present all the various sources that i have on the talkpage, including sources that others presented during the massive discussion and some that were found on Google books. i know you have access to some sources i do not, any chance you chime in when you have a chance?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
copyedit request\
Hey, EyeSerene,
I'm in the longterm process of preparing Kongo class battlecruiser for FAC, and the article is in sore need of an external copyedit. Would you be willing to add it to the end of your to-do list? It's not particularly urgent; the next month or so will mostly be adjusting to new realities for school (it's the distance equivalent of if you packed up and moved to Istanbul), but I would like to take the article on an FAC run before Christmas if possible. Thanks in advance; hope your summer went well. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 00:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Milhist A-class and Peer Reviews Jul-Dec 2009
|
Military history reviewers' award | |
| By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews during the period July-December 2009, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
Milhist A-Class and Peer reviews Jan-Jun 2010
|
Military history reviewers' award | |
| By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Jan-Jun 2010, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Ian Rose (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
Thanks to you too Ian :) EyeSerenetalk 11:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Just to let you know
I'm almost finished with something for the newsletter, should you choose to include it. It is, as I thought, long. :) I'm struggling with a migraine this morning, but hoping to finish it up today or tomorrow. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- That's fantastic, thank you so much! I've had your development page watchlisted and it looks really good. The newsletter won't go out for a week or so yet, so there's no rush. I get the odd migraine - thankfully rarely - and they're not much fun. You have my sympathy... EyeSerenetalk 11:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. :) Fortunately, I seldom have multi-day headache marathons any more. I don't know if I'm getting better or if my meds are. :D And I can usually function even when I'm on them, although I know I'm not supposed to. Resting in a darkened room is too boring. :P
- I'm almost done with the essay. I need to reread it myself with fresh eyes, and then I want to get a couple of people who do copyright work to review it for clarity and accuracy, but first I thought I'd ask you to tell me, honestly, is it insanely long? If it's a WP:TLDR problem, I'd rather get fierce with some copyediting. :) I know how to do this, and it does not hurt my feelings, so please tell me if you think I should cut it by 25% or 50%. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- It is on the long side :) It's all good stuff though and it's a complicated subject. I think it would be a shame to trim too much just to try to fit some arbitrary word length.
- I wonder if we could consider splitting it into a two(?)-part series. Perhaps the first could focus on the what and the why (essentially your first two L2 headers), and the second on what we do about it. We've had a request on the coords talk page for practical instructions on how to contribute to a CCI (how you identify which specific bits are copyvios etc), so perhaps that might be worth going into a little more detail about.
- What do you think? EyeSerenetalk 11:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- BTW, I've mentioned this on our newsroom talk page here if you want to reply there instead. EyeSerenetalk 11:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Replied there. I'm for either direction. I'll make it work however is best for you guys. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please just let me know what options you guys prefer. :) I'm somewhat distracted by another massive CCI which is raising "how do we handle this" issues at ANI, but am still all on board with whipping this into whatever shape you guys need or desire, ala my note here, when you need it. I do understand the importance of deadline. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think we'd like to split it into two editions (the first for what copyvio is and why it's bad, and the second for what we do about it). I was intending to try my hand at that today, but work is insanely busy at the moment (start of training year plus H&S issues in a company we advise) and to top it off I'm in the process of moving house. If you'd like some assistance I'll hopefully get some time tomorrow to take a swing at it. EyeSerenetalk 14:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You semi-protected this back in Oct 2009, for copyright troubles; can you please consider removing the protection; it seems a very low-traffic article, and there is a new editor with an apparently valid request to edit it, Talk:Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara#Edit request from Partizanpack, 4 September 2010. Best, Chzz ► 19:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- The edit request has been declined by User:Celestra with what seems to me to be a reasonable rationale. The copyright thing was the simplest to quote as the reason for long-term protection, but additionally there were significant POV and advocacy issues (I believe the article is about a song that celebrates certain war crimes against the Serbs, so you can imagine what a battleground it's been!) Personally I'd like to maintain the protection for now, but if you feel it's no longer necessary I have no problem with you asking for further opinions at WP:RFPP or somewhere suitable :) EyeSerenetalk 08:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
copyedit request
Could you check over Dragon Quest? There was a failed FAC a while ago and one of the A-class reviewers has concerns about the prose.陣内Jinnai 02:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- My sincere apologies, but I doubt I'll have the time to do this in the near future. I'm hugely busy at work and moving house too, so my on-wiki time is very limited (and will be even more so when we move because I won't have an internet connection for a while). Sorry, EyeSerenetalk 07:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
North Africa source question
Hi E, a chappy on the North African Campaign talkpage has stumped across the following source, which provides a figure for overall losses during the entire campaign. Can you advise if said source would fall foul of any wiki policy? Regards --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Seems okay to me - the author cites his sources (although not as precisely as we do) and the site appears to be reputable. At the very least I imagine it will do until better sources are uncovered. Apologies for the hiatus in the Charnwood ce by the way - I'm in the process of moving house at the moment and chaotic isn't the word... EyeSerenetalk 07:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice E, and dont worry about the CE - i cant give that much advise or time (outside of work!) for another week or so then i shall be uni free ... until my exams at least!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)
|
|
A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound |
Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants |
|
|
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC) | |
Hey
Pascerboy is engaging in OR by saying a couple of conflicts aren't wars because of a few fatalities at list of wars 1900-1944. B-Machine (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey, EyeSerene. Just so you know, this user has been asking to be unblocked, and a few admins have suggested that the only way he be unblocked is to submit to an image uploading ban. I've proposed terms of such a ban on his talk page, but I wanted to check with you as the blocking admin to see if they were sufficient. Thanks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
IP you blocked for a month
I think the IP may actually be a troll. It doesn't affect the block, but I think he/she was having us on. Dougweller (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.
With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team, Roger Davies talk 21:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Admin type question
Hi Sorry to drop this on you but your the only Admin I could think of at the time. What can (apart from ignore it) do about this last edit to my user page ? [1] --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Bit more it was obviously in response to my edit here [2] --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Congrats!
Congrats on your election as Coordinator of the Military history Project! In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
|
The WikiProject Barnstar | |
| In gratitude of your service as coordinator for the Military history Project from March 2010 to September 2010, I hereby award you this WikiProject Barnstar. —TomStar81 (Talk) 23:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC) |
Thank you
Thanks very much for your quick action on 80.193.135.88. I do hope that they either stop, or decide to edit seriously. Either way this may well help to break the pattern of disrupt/vanish/return/disrupt. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Something for you
|
|
Military history reviewers' award | |
| By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period 1 April-30 September 2010, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Roger Davies talk 08:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
I thought it might be helpful if I alerted you to user:95.170.220.173, who has been reinstating user:Ledenierhomme's disruptive changes to articles and appears to be a sock of that user. 88.106.189.128 (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. The IP has already been dealt with, but I've reset Ledenierhomme's one-week block for block evasion. EyeSerenetalk 22:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Operation Totalize
As a member of the Normandy team.
Hello. I'm leaving this heads up here as there is a disruptive editor on the prowl. I've notified one Admin, who doesn't seem to want to do anything about it (apparently it isn't vandalism). They seem not to have taken into account the history with this individual. A bit of back ground - had some trouble on the Blitzkrieg article which had to locked because of him, now he has taken to challenging all of my edits across the articles (Otto Kittel which has passed GA and Adolf Galland which is currently at GA review); they have been reverted but it seems he is gunning for me personally. Dapi89 (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've replied at User_talk:EdJohnston#IP_68.144.181.33_.E2.80.8E_and_139.48.25.60 since that's where discussion seems to be taking place. EyeSerenetalk 09:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Annexation of Goa Discussion
Hello EyeSerene, Can I get your opinion on what's going on with the most recent discussions regarding the invasion of Goa (last 2 or 3 sections). I don't want to push it, but it does seem that some participants sideline inconvenient issues and constantly threaten to block me out; or is it that my participation is incorrect? If you have the patience and time, can you let me know what you think, it seems that my interventions are either too controversial or opinionated for some of the participants in the group? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goali (talk • contribs) 11:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Annexation of Goa Discussion
Hello EyeSerene, Can I get your opinion on what's going on with the most recent discussions regarding the invasion of Goa (last 2 or 3 sections). I don't want to push it, but it does seem that some participants sideline inconvenient issues and constantly threaten to block me out; or is it that my participation is incorrect? If you have the patience and time, can you let me know what you think, it seems that my interventions are either too controversial or opinionated for some of the participants in the group?Goali (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've watchlisted the page. Another editor has independently brought up concerns with the talk page discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Personal Attacks; please feel free to comment there too. EyeSerenetalk 09:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)
|
The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals |
|
|
|
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC) | |
Help needed
Hi EyeSerene,
Can you help with this request made on my talk page over the weekend? It seems that several IPs have made edits to the article, all of them unhelpful it appears. I can't roll this back though - can admins? Apologies if you think I should have just posted this at ANI, it just seems a fairly minor reverting issue not worth bothering that page with.
Cheers, Ranger Steve Talk 12:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- No problem - I've rv'd to the last known good version. This could possibly have gone to WP:AIV (depends on the warnings the vandal has already received), but I have no objection to a personal request :) EyeSerenetalk 10:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Cheers EyeSerene. I was unsure about WP:AIV, purely because it seems to be about the vandal and not the vandalised page. Where there were numerous vandals for this one, with differing levels of warning, I thought I'd just ask someone I knew could do it! Cheers Ranger Steve Talk 11:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Noticeboards, source criticism and claims of BLP issues resolved
The Founders Intent relayed the e-mail you sent him and I would like to thank you for looking into this matter. Ronz has "marked the discussion as stuck" with User:Griswaldo and User:Ludwigs2 ruling that since there is no consensus there were no BLP violations. Griswaldo has also stated that ALL comments deleted by Ronz need to be restored. If you could could you please repost your preliminary ruling on this matter to the actual noticeboard so that we have an administrative ruling on this matter rather than the "I give up" we currently have just so we don't have a mess like this in the future.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Which noticeboard is this? I apologise for the late response, but as I mentioned in my email I've been on holiday. I'll be happy to take a more in-depth look if things are still not settled, though obviously I can only offer impartial advice unless there have been user conduct problems (in which case I have recourse to the admin tools if necessary). EyeSerenetalk 10:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- It was Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Noticeboards.2C_source_criticism_and_claims_of_BLP_issues and things finally got to the point Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Problem_on_BLP_noticeboard happened. So the mess on that is over though the Weston Price article has new headaches with the inability of another editor to understand that material referring to Price cannot be used to make what based on other (admittedly IMHO) more reliable sources is incorrect medical claims (see Talk:Weston_Price#Clarification_of_focal_infection_theory regarding this). My effort at making scene of the material is at [3] and I think it was reasonable well given what we have to work with but it got revered in favor of the stuff contradicted by other reliable sources.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm glad the main issue is now sorted. In regards to sources contradicting each other, as a rule of thumb it's not really our business as editors to select which information to present to readers and which to exclude; if two reliable sources say two different things I generally find it's best to present both views with attribution in the text and without commentary or anything that implies Wikipedia has a preferred position (eg "According to X..., however, Y writes that..."). Perhaps this approach might be applicable in this case? EyeSerenetalk 08:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- If it was just two reliable sources conflicting each other I would agree but the problem is the source (Baumgartner, J. Craig; Siqueira, Jose F.; Sedgley, Christine M.; Kishen, Anil, "7", Ingle's Endodontics (6 ed.), PMPH-USA, pp. 221–222) from which the editor is citing is published by the USA division of the People's Medical Publishing House (of China) whose quality we are not sure about. In fact an earlier book by this very same publisher (Silverman, Sol; Lewis R. Eversole, Edmond L. Truelove (2002) Essentials of oral medicine PMPH usa; Page 159) says the exact opposite thing! Furthermore, the statements of the Silverman source are supported by two Wiley publications one of which is a textbook (2002 and 2009), a 2001 Military Medicine article, a 2006 Jaypee Brothers Medical Publisher Textbook, and 2000 Journal of the California Dental Association article!.
- Furthermore this editor is doing WP:IDHT with regards to the now insane amount of evidence both contemporary and current that the "old" and "new" Focal infection theories are one in the same. Now the editor is doing things like /groans and /rolls eyes to points being raised again and again and again because they are effectively engaging WP:IDHT. It like welcome to Ronz part 2 with another editor and it is driving me (and it looks like the other editors as well) nuts.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- If consensus is clear about which direction the preponderance of reliable sources are taking, there's no need to jump through the hoops every time an editor with a contradictory viewpoint shows up and wants to debate them (especially if that viewpoint has elements of WP:FRINGE, as I suspect you may be implying here). In the absence of new and compelling arguments that would cause you to re-evaluate established consensus, it's perfectly acceptable to address the editor's concerns briefly and politely - perhaps pointing them to prior discussions - and leave it at that.
- If the consensus position is not accepted by the dissenting editor and their behaviour impedes progress on the article talk page (or worse, disrupts the article itself), they can and will be blocked per WP:DISRUPT. As a first resort though, it can sometimes be effective to simply state the consensus position and ask them what specific improvements (perhaps including the actual proposed text) they wish to make to the article. This focuses discussion in the right place and tends to see off those that simply want to debate the subject (per WP:NOT#FORUM). If all they then do is repeat points that have already been answered, there's no need to continue responding to them. Would it help if I post something to the talk page there? EyeSerenetalk 15:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- It would be welcome for a fresh pair of eyes to look at what we have. Another problem is that the two sources after 1955 that criticize Price have issues: a publisher of unknown merit that contradicts itself (People's Medical Publishing House) and a source that was under the heading of Philosophical Rumination in Nutrition Today which looks like it had very different editorial policies in 1981 then it does now: "editors do not accept responsibility for the views expressed in any article which appears in these pages" vs "peer reviewed articles".--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Message from Wolfdog406
Hi, can you please block this user from editing? Three times I had to revert this person's edit and I told them to stop on their talk page.
Thanks
Wolfdog406 (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Operation Cobra
Hi E
There is an annon IP that keeps slapping cite tags on the dates in the article regardless of the fact their sourced in within the article and reverting edits that remove them. Just bringing it to your attention maybe want to check it out?
Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Iraq War
Hello EyeSerene, just letting you know that there is an edit request on the Iraq War page.67.84.178.0 (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I believe Ledennierhomme has returned to Expédition d'Irlande. At any rate, an ip keeps trying to revert to his preferred version of the article. I've reverted several times, but I don't know if you'd be interested in discussing the issue on the article talkpage.
Comparison of armoured to unarmoured flight deck designs - disruptive editing
Hi can you please take a look at the following editor's comments in Comparison of armoured to unarmoured flight deck designs: "10:45, 11 November 2010 195.113.8.138 (talk) (27,247 bytes) (→Midway and Forrestal classes: non-descript webs are hardly rs; these refs were also added by an editor with a long, long history of fraudulent "refs")" I have been trying to edit this article and turn it into a useful and well referenced article and lately there appears to be a pattern of vandalism and/or disruptive editing occurring which has patterns which are similar to banned editor. Thanks.Damwiki1 (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's purely disruptive - do you have any idea which editor this might be? In any case I've semi-protected the article for a week. If you need longer, which I suspect you might, just drop me another note. Best, EyeSerenetalk 08:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm being a bit paranoid but the editor's comments, which includes a personal attack, and tone appear to be similar to Kurfürst. Damwiki1 (talk) 09:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Uff :( I hope you're wrong, but obviously it's worth keeping an eye on things. EyeSerenetalk 09:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, now 195.113.8.138 is using the title of a thread on the talk page as a means of creating another personal attack: "Recent 'wave' of dubious quotations by Damwiki1" I hesitate to retitle this thread but I suspect that it breaches wiki guidelines for politeness.Damwiki1 (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- It does. Disagreements over sources are common enough and not an issue if debates are conducted collegially, but personal attacks and allegations like that are not on. I've warned the IP editor, though unfortunately as their IP address seems to change there's little we can do other than maintain protection on the article and block individual addresses if the disruption reoccurs. EyeSerenetalk 14:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, now 195.113.8.138 is using the title of a thread on the talk page as a means of creating another personal attack: "Recent 'wave' of dubious quotations by Damwiki1" I hesitate to retitle this thread but I suspect that it breaches wiki guidelines for politeness.Damwiki1 (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Uff :( I hope you're wrong, but obviously it's worth keeping an eye on things. EyeSerenetalk 09:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm being a bit paranoid but the editor's comments, which includes a personal attack, and tone appear to be similar to Kurfürst. Damwiki1 (talk) 09:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)